Rock bridges and their influence

on slope stability

IP.M. Dight
Australian Centre for
Geomechanics
The University of Western Australia
N.R.P. Baczynski
Ok Tedi Mining Limited

Abstract
Microseismic monitoring of open pit mines has indentified that in some cases the fractures developed below the bottom of the
existing pit occur as the result of extensional fracturing of the rock. This microseismic activity could be attributed to extending
of existing fractures, fracturing of infill and/or developing of new fractures through intact rock. The orientation of these new
fractures is a function of the stress path (1 increasing and 3 decreasing). The orientation of the fractures is expected to be low
angle (less than 30). As mining progresses through this fracture zone these features combine with the existing fabric in the rock
slope to create step path failures. The failure mechanism differs from the traditional approach to step path failure which assumes
that the rock bridge fails in shear.
This paper addresses how to measure rock bridges and how to incorporate the new failure surfaces into the STEPSIM program.
INTRODUCTION
Rock bridges have a significant impact on rock slope stability. When considering kinematic failure in design, the designer has to make
a decision on the height of slope to be considered, whether it is overall, intermediate or batter scale. The continuity of structures is a big
issue, particularly when at feasibility level, there is often little in the way of rock exposure upon which to base an assessment of continuity.
Obvious geological inferences are available where these are apparent e.g. bedding, contacts, faults and shears would typically have
large continuities. Approaches that have been used in the past to ascertain the size of structures is to use a loose correlation with infill
thickness. There may be approaches which have promise (e.g. Dight and Bogacz, 1) but this requires a very good structural understanding
of the local and immediate regional geology, or techniques like Geomole borehole radar which may help. In the absence of any other
information, it would be common for designers to assume that for the height of slope under consideration to assume that the structures
have continuities similar to the slope height.
Rock slopes are typically created in a relatively low stress environment as a result of progressively unloading the material during mining.
Rock failure in this case is generally associated with low stress drops emitting little noise until failure is imminent. Geotechnical failure
(Dight, 2) is defined as a failure that is statistically expected based on the defect orientations and their intersection with the pit slope. It
typically occurs during mining and scaling but often does not significantly impede mining. Such events can be catastrophic if personnel
are seriously injured or death results. Generally, however, as a result of low exposure times, such events tend not to be catastrophic for
personnel, equipment or financially. A mining failure is defined as one which occurs subsequent to creating the slope face, and can create
significant disruption to mining. While these are also geotechnical failures, the timing of the failure is the important issue. The Large Open
Pit Project (Read, 3) has defined failure as follows:
Slope failure occurs when the displacement reaches a level where it is no longer safe to operate or the intended function cannot be
met (e.g. ramp access across the slope is no longer possible).
The term collapse is used synonymously with failure when the failure occurs rapidly.
Progressive failure occurs when the displacement continues to accelerate to a point of collapse (or greatly accelerated
movement).
Continued mining after failure inevitably involves re-configuring the slope, either through flattening the wall from the crest or by
stepping out at the toe. This will result in increased stripping of waste and/or loss of ore and may have potentially significant financial
repercussions.
So both definitions are compatible.
Where then do rock bridges come in? The existence of rock bridges limits structure continuity and hence the size of failure. Rock bridges
can be created because the fracture sets leave pieces of intact rock or because the structure pattern does not allow a failure plane to
develop at low enough energy for failure to occur as shown in Figure 1. However without failure along a rock bridge kinematic failure
would not result.

Slope Stability

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Figure 1 Joint Network without a Clear Kinematic Failure

Baczynski (4) presented a method for evaluating the influence of rock bridges that could then be evaluated using limit
equilibrium methods (Figure 2). The program STEPSIM4 has been through several iterations since it was first conceived by
McMahon in the late 1970s. The approach was more comprehensive than that postulated by Jennings in 1970 but in principle
the approach has similarities. In Baczynskis (4) approach four defect sets can be considered with comprehensive statistical
input including:

Probability of occurrence, probability of cut-off, and probability of weak infill.

Defect dip, length spacing.

Defect shear strength (both weak and strong).

Intact rock strength, and rock mass rock strength.

As per Figure 3, the concept of unit-blocks is used to simulate the statistical occurrence or absence of particular

geological defect sets along a candidate step-path through the slope. This concept directly reflects the way that the structural
field mapping data is likewise partitioned into user-designated size unit blocks and statistically processed. For example, the
structural data measured along a continuous 1,000 m long line-traverse may be partitioned into 100 successive, each 10 m
long, sub-segments of the traverse. Each sub-segment is then checked for the occurrence or absence of particular geological
defect sets. If, for example, Defect Set 1 occurs in 43% of the line traverse sub-segments, then a probability of occurrence of
43% is assigned to Defect Set 1 in the ensuring STEPSIM4 step-path analysis where the slope model is partitioned into 10 _ 10
m unit-blocks. Dimensions chosen for unit-blocks may simply reflect the scale of observation/mapping in the field (e.g. 15 m
bench height) or some other convenient dimension that is guided by slope height considerations in the STEPSIM4 analysis. The
statistical occurrence or absence criteria are developed for each defect set that is being considered in the step-path model.
Unit blocks where none of the defect sets occurs are statistically assigned rock mass shear strength attributes.
A typical simulation would involve 5,000 to 10,000 runs however this is not a constraint.

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Slope Stability

Figure 2 Composite Failure Path through a Rock Slope (Baczynski, 4)

Figure 3 Conceptual STEPSIM4 Model

Slope Stability

Santiago Chile, November 2009

The number of simulations should be based on the number of variables to ensure a representative response. The typical graphical output
would be as shown in Figure 4. A table of the step path angle, the cohesion and friction angle along the simulated path is then output (as
shown by example in Table I) which can be used in limit equilibrium programs such as SLIDE, XSTABL or SLOPEW, where groundwater
pressures can be included.

Figure 4 Typical Graphical Output for a Simulated Step Path through Intact Rock, Rock mass, Joints and Faults

Table I Output From a Step Path Simulation

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Slope Stability

In the STEPSIM4 analyses, the roughness i for each defect is measured during the field mapping and then the roughness is
statistically assigned during the development of the statistical model for the effective friction angle of each defect set. This already
adjusted/roughness corrected friction angle model is then directly input into the STEPSIM4 analysis instead of being calculated
within the STEPSIM4 analysis itself.

Figure 5 Slope Analysis Using the Step Path Cohesion and Friction Values from Table I

A limitation of limit equilibrium programs is that they do not provide any idea of the likely slope deformation. With the advent of
discrete fracture networks more widely available for design an alternative to the above would be to incorporate the fracture pattern
into a continuum model (FE or FD) or a discontinuum model (UDEC, PFC2D) or a hybrid program such as the promising ELFEN (Stead
et al., 5)

FIELD MEASUREMENT OF ROCK BRIDGES

For each geological defect set, the STEPSIM4 simulation software generates defect length traces and, as statistically appropriate,
attaches intact rock and/or rock mass bridges at the not cut-off end of each defect along candidate step paths through model
slopes in accordance with the statistical attribute models that had been developed by line-traverse structural mapping of slope faces.
The statistical attribute models developed in the field provide direct input to the STEPSIM4 simulation process.
Practical and time considerations dictate that it is usually impossible to map each and every defect in the slope face, irrespective
of the defect size. Thus, at the outset of a field mapping task, a decision must be made with respect to the lower-bound defect length
that will be mapped.
In commonly occurring moderately-jointed rock masses where defect spacing averages 0.5 to 1 m, this can be used as a lowerbound defect length. In massive, sparsely-fractured, rock masses (e.g. siliceous sandstones, conglomerates) defects as short as 0.1
m may be mapped to provide sufficient field data to develop the necessary statistical models for defect attributes. In intensely-jointed
rock masses where defect spacing averages 0.01 to 0.1 m, it is recommended that defects only longer than 2 m or 3 m should be
mapped, with the highly fractured ground between the mapped defects being regarded as rock mass strength.
Once the lower-bound length of defect mapping is determined for the domain, the following attributes are measured for each
naturally occurring (i.e. not blasting/ excavation induced) geological defect observed along the mapping line traverse:

Slope Stability

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Defect distance along line-traverse.

Rock type.
Rock Weathering category.
Rock Strength category.
Defect type (Fault, Shear, Bedding, Contact, Joint, etc.).
Defect 3D Orientation (dip direction/dip angle).
Defect Length along strike and down dip.
Defect small scale surface roughness (e.g. Barton rating 1-10, (Barton, 6)).
Defect infill type.
Defect Infill thickness.
Defect large scale surface roughness (measured in terms of undulation wavelength and amplitude).
Defect cut-off status for furthest/highest end of defect (Yes/No).
Defect rock bridge length for not cut-off defects (distance to the nearest other defect).

In addition to the above data for naturally occurring defects, the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) and fracture frequency per metre
are determined for each rock type at regular distance intervals (say, 5 to 10 m) along the line traverse. This extra data allows subsequent
determination of RMR and Q rock mass classification indices for the mapped slope face.
The Northing (N), East (E) and Relative Level (RL) details for the start of the line-traverse are recorded. Likewise, the bearing and
plunge of the line traverse is recorded at the start of the traverse and at each location where the traverse changes direction. This data
is needed for subsequent assigning of N, E and RL coordinates to each mapped defect, for minimization of directional sampling bias on
stereographic projection plots by applying the Terzaghi Correction Factor and for computing actual/true defect spacing from the apparent
defect spacing that is measured along the line traverse.
The task of determining the presence and determining the length intact rock and/or rock mass bridges in the field should be as
objective, systematic and accurate as practical. In highly-fractured rock masses, the majority (say, >95%) of defects may be cut-off by
other defects; although as indicated in the discussion above rock mass bridges may exist between defects longer than the determined
lower-bound length limit (e.g. 3 m) for defect mapping. Even in moderately-fractured rock masses, most (say, 65% to 85%) defects may
be cut-off. In massive/sparsely-fractured rock masses, relatively few (say, 5% to 10%) of the defects may be cut-off.
Figures 6 and 7 show examples of highly and sparsely fractured rock masses (i.e. in a Central Queensland coal mine) respectively.

Figure 6 Example of Sparsely-Jointed Rock Mass with Low Cut-Off Rate for Defects

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Slope Stability

Figure 7 Example of Moderately to Highly-Jointed Rock Mass with High Cut-Off Rate for Defects

For a defect which terminates in solid rock, the rock bridge is defined as the shortest distance from the defect end terminating
in solid rock to the nearest other defect of any defect set.
To some extent, the degree of accuracy in field determination of the rock bridge length will be dictated by the characteristics of
the rock mass itself (defect spacing and length) and by the height of the slope to be analysed in STEPSIM4. In practice, the rock
bridge length is often estimated to within 5% to 10% accuracy. For a rock bridge length of <0.1 m, <0.5 m, 1 m to 2 m and >5
m, the visual estimating process should aim for an accuracy of 0.01 m, 0.02 m to 0.05 m, 0.05 m to 0.1 m and 0.2 m to 0.5 m,
respectively.
If new cracks/defects associated with the microseismic activity below the pit floor or resulting from production blasting within the
pit are to be considered in the STEPSIM4 analyses then suitable guidelines need to be developed for both recognizing these newlycreated cracks/defects during field mapping of slope faces and for interpreting the horizontal distance to which zones of these
newly-created cracks will persist into the rock mass behind the excavated slope face. Whilst recognition of the newly created cracks
may be a relatively straight forward exercise, estimating the depth of these crack zones would in the first instance be subjective or
would require considerable other geotechnical investigation within the respective open pit mines such as seismic tomography.
The concept of trying to assess the slope stability impact of newly-created cracks has been attempted previously. During the
1997-2000 pit slope optimization study at Ok Tedi Mine (PNG), the second author and his colleagues (Little et al., 7) attempted to
quantify the stability impact of blasting damage on pit slopes. Ultimately, this was achieved by reducing the cohesion determined in
STEPSIM4 along step-paths by 50% in the rock mass within the first 50 m of the slope face. In the Ok Tedi case, this approach
decreased the computed FoS by about 0.05.

EVIDENCE FROM
INITIAL MICROSEISMIC MONITORING OF OPEN PIT
The ACG has recently completed its study of slope monitoring The ACG has recently completed its study of slope monitoring of a
large open pit (Wesseloo et al., 8). The project used and uniaxial geophones and accelerometers. The following are general results
of the ACG study on microseismicity in open pit mines (Wesseloo et al., 8):

Slope Stability

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Open pits present more challenges than those typically seen in more recent underground monitoring - large volumes to exposures
ratios; small stress drops; variable seismic velocity near walls; low signal to noise ratios; sensor reliability; communications
reliability; access issues; requirement for manual processing; source location issues.
Monitoring the whole open pit is currently unrealistic.
Targeting the seismogenic volume can be challenging because its location is difficult to predict.
High cost of installation (long holes, cabling, pit access); sensor spacing.
Triaxial geophones with wide frequency response are seen as more reliable than accelerometers or uniaxial sensors.

The results showed that the predominant rock failure around the pit was extensional. This would also be expected adjacent to the
pit walls and in the floor as a result of rebound and stress induced fracturing. It is expected that in a failure the source locations would
change and failure would contain more shear type features. The existence of the extensional mode had previously been predicted by
Stacey, (9). This has been also the basis of explanations by Stead et al. (5), Simmons and Simpson (10) and Dight (2). There is further
evidence of such failure from the work at Palabora (Glazer and Hepworth, 11, 12) where the zone at the bottom of the Palabora pit
has been fractured ahead of mining. Often this has been attributed to blast damage or rebound only but is likely to be exacerbated
by the initial stress concentrations seen in continuum analyses as a shown in Figure 8. On this graph the stress flow lines have been
drawn to show how the stress changes direction with obvious concentrations occurring at the toe of the slope.

Figure 8 Continuum Analysis of 150 m High Slope Showing Maximum Shear Strain and Stress Flow Lines. Slope Angle is 64.
The Factor of Safety for this Slope is 1.93.

NUMERICAL SIMULATION
The following example used the Rocscience software PHASE2. The discrete fracture network was superimposed on the intact
rock in the STEPSIM simulation. The results were then evaluated using the strength reduction routine. The results for a similar fracture
network to that modelled in STEPSIM4 are shown in Figure 9.

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Slope Stability

Figure 9 Discrete Fracture Network in PHASE2

The results of analysing this network are presented in Figure 10. Firstly the impact of the fracture network is to alter the stress flow
pattern. In addition to the extensional fracturing noted by Wesseloo and Dight (13) which has long term implications for pit development,
it is likely that the uncontrolled fracturing of rock which occurs near the pit wall and floor due to blast damage and unloading will have
significant impacts on the generation of step paths and a reduction in the seismic velocity of the rock adjacent to the present pit wall.
These fractures make the issue of source location more difficult unless sensors are closely spaced. Further the zone of lower seismic
velocity is likely to develop with time (Savich et al., 14) Figure 11. This is also a conclusion form the microseismic monitoring undertaken
by the ACG (Wesseloo and Dight, 13). This zone then becomes more vulnerable to sliding due to cumulative seismic response say to
blasting or local seismic events.
The results shown in Figure 10 indicate that the factor of safety is similar to the equivalent result for the limit equilibrium. The stress
flow lines however indicate that the continuum assumption about the distribution of stress is more complex.

Figure 10 Results of a Strength Reduction Analysis for the Discrete Fracture Network Shown in Figure 9. The Contours are the Stress Flow Lines Superimposed
on the Maximum Shear Strain.

Slope Stability

Santiago Chile, November 2009

What is the impact of the additional fracturing on the existence of rock bridges and how can this be taken into account in limit equilibrium
analyses? The simplest way would be to reduce the rock mass properties. This is already taken into account in the HoekBrown method
where the rock mass near an exposed surface can be reduced taking account of the excavation process. It could also be argued that this
fracturing is already taking place in any case and as suggested by Wesseloo et al., 8 is much more likely for pits deeper than 200 m.

Figure 11 Change in Seismic Velocity with Deepening of an Excavation

(Savich et al., 14)

The impact of reducing the rock mass properties by taking account of the additional fracturing is akin to reducing the GIS (Hoek et
al., 15) by 10 or by using the D factor in the HoekBrown method.
A step path simulation is shown in Figure 12. Here the average step path angle is 53. If new fracturing is introduced the impact on
the step path simulation is to probably lower the dip of the plane on which failure could occur and create larger variability in the step
path plane than would have been assessed from a study of the primary fracture pattern. This is logical and goes some way to explaining
the observation that many pit slope failures in hard rock occur near the face and often on unknown structures (Dight, 2). This is
illustrated in Figure 13 simulating the same problem as shown in Figure 12 with greater variability from induced structure.
Figure 14 shows a similar numerical simulation with imposed fracturing due to the induced stress effects. It can be seen that the
inferred factor of safety is now lower in this case. However it is only one representation of the possible millions of cases that should
be examined statistically.

Figure 12 STEPSIM4 Simulation of a Combination of Joints and Faults Before Induced Fracturing.

10

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Slope Stability

Figure 13 Step Path Simulation Much More Varied with the Introduction of Induced Structures

Figure 14 Simulation of a 200 m High Slope Incorporating one Joint and two Induced Fracture Systems. The Plot is of the Maximum Shear Strain Showing
the Near Surface Disturbance. The Second Contour Lines are the Stress Flow Lines. The Stress Ratio is 2:1:1.

Using Monte Carlo simulation Harr (16) presented the following expression which gives the number of simulations to reduce the error
to an acceptable level:

m
(1)

Slope Stability

Santiago Chile, November 2009

11

where:
h2 a/2 = confidence coefficient (@95% confidence interval = 1.96)
e = relative percentage error (say 10%)
m = the number of samples
For m = 36, e = 0.1, confidence interval = 95%, N = 2.33E + 71! This is a very large number of numerical simulations and perhaps the
pit will have already been excavated before they are complete.
To quote Harr (16):
Needless to say, for finite element method (FEM) analyses, which by their very nature require large commitments of computer time for even
a few runs, Monte Carlo simulations are not recommended. In spite of this, the literature is replete with FEM routines, with numerous variables,
where less than 100 Monte Carlo simulation were generated. In addition to the large number of trials, Monte Carlo methods require that the
entire probability distribution of each independent random variable be know initially. Such is seldom the case.

This is why modelling of geological systems is complex! Add to this that the numerical methods themselves are approximations then the
problems may be numerically untenable. There are other methods (e.g. point estimate or stochastic methods which may result in significantly
less number. This has to be investigated. As noted by Baczynski (4) none of these approaches bypasses the skill of the geotechnical engineer
and their decision making processes.

CONCLUSIONS
There is still a long way to go to simulate rock properties in real time. Until this can be achieved there will remain a role for empirical
and semi empirical methods such as limit equilibrium and products such as STEPSIM4. STEPSIM4 is an excellent example of how to
incorporate statistical data if properly collected to provide reasoned analysis of likely mechanisms of failure through rock bridges. Use
of microseismicity or acoustic emission to listen to failure processes in slopes will provide the key to understanding the rock bridge
failure mechanism which can then be incorporated into limit equilibrium and numerical analyses. It remains that numerical techniques
are the only way to evaluate deformation in slopes and hence satisfy the serviceability criterion implicit in the definition of failure and
hence will always offer the best way forward if we can do enough simulations and verify the results i.e. we must calibrate the
results.
The simulation of discrete fracture networks is a step forward, although they can consume a lot of computer resources. The same
results can still be approximated with limit equilibrium and the HoekBrown criterion using a D = 1 for the near surface excavation
damage zone. As noted in the Ok Tedi study the results for high rock slopes (i.e. 500 to 700 m high) are within 0.05 on the factor of
safety.

REFERENCES
1. P.M. Dight and W. Bogacz, Application of Tectogenesis to understanding pit Slope behaviour LOPC, 2009.
2. P.M. Dight, Pit wall failures on unknown structures. International Symposium, Stability of rock slopes in open pit mining and civil engineering
situations, The SAIMM 36 April 2006, 2006.
3. J. Read, Presentation on Large Open Pit Slope Stability Project ACG Course on Rock Slope stability May, 2009.
4. N.R.P. Baczynski, STEPSIM4 Step-path method for slope risks. Geo Eng, Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, Melbourne, 2000, 6.
5. D. Stead, E. Eberhardt and J.S. Coggin, Developments in the characterisation of complex rock slope deformation and failure using
numerical modelling techniques. Engineering Geology 83, 2006, 217-235.
6. N.R. Barton, A model study of rock-joint deformation, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 9, 1972, 579-602.
7. T.N. Little, J.P. Cortes and N.R.P. Baczynski, Risk-Based slope design optimization study for the Ok Tedi Copper-Gold Mine. Internal
report to Ok Tedi Mining Limited August 1999, Vol 1 to 8, 1999.
8. J. Wesseloo, P.M. Dight and Y. Potvin, High Resolution Microseismicity in Open Pit Mines. Meriwa Research Report, 2009.
9. T.R. Stacey, A simple extension strain criterion for fracture of brittle rock, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., vol. 18, 1981, 469-474.

12

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Slope Stability

10. J. Simmons and P.J. Simpson, Composite failure mechanisms in coal measures rock masses myths and reality. International
Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes in Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering behaviour SAIMM, 2006, 3150.
11. S .N. Glazer and N. Hepworth, Seismic monitoring of block cave crown pillar Palabora Mining Company, RSA in Massmin 2004,
Proceedings (eds. Kazulovic, A and Alfaro, M.A.) Minera Chilena, Santiago, Chile, 2004, 565-569.
12. S.N. Glazer and N. Hepworth, Seismicity induced by cave mining Palabora Experience. Massmin, 2006.
13. J. Wesseloo and P.M. Dight, Microseismicity in Deep Open Pits LOPC, 2009.
14. A.I. Savich, A.D. Mikhailov, V.I. Koptev and M.M. llvin, Geophysical studies of rock masses. Proc, 5th Int. Congress on Rock
Mechanics, 1983.
15. E . Hoek, C. Carranza-Torres and B. Corkum, Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion 2002 Edition. 5th North American Rock Mechanics
Symposium and 17th Tunnelling Association of Canada Conference: NARMS-TAC, 2002, 267-271.
16. M. Harr, Reliability-Based Design in Civil Engineering. Dover Publications Inc. Mineola, New York, 1996.

Slope Stability

Santiago Chile, November 2009

13